The witch is dead...

[ivaylo]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/microsoft-is-putting-internet-explorer-out-to-pasture-1.2998222

Can't believe they went to war for this thing, it was one of their flagship products, etc, etc...

[SeanB]

Dead on the surface, but coming back with a rattlecan overhaul for sure.

[rdl]

Dead on the surface, but coming back with a rattlecan overhaul for sure.

Yeah, just a new name and a new look for the Windows 10 version.

[nctnico]

And there are still suckers falling for the 'selling an old turd with new gold plating trick' Microsoft tries to pull every time.

[Fraser]

I have several very dinky Vaio VPCM13M1E (1.8GHz Atom) notebook computers that serve as my internet browsers and test beds for various little projects. They do not have the power of a full laptop but have served me well....... until I upgraded to IE11.

I got to the point of considering binning the Vaio laptops in recent months as the internet browsing was absolutely awful. I was seeing hangs, total freezes and really cr*ppy performance in general.
I then saw the light and realised that my notebooks were not old and decrepit, they were being dragged down by Internet Explorer 11. I was fully up to date on patches etc and decided to move back to IE10....no improvement, then back to IE9....still no improvement. I then loaded Chrome and the notebooks returned to their usual snappy browsing and great overall browsing experience. I have not looked back since. Internet Explorer used to be touted as the baseline for browsers but that day is long gone. I would not bother with it again, even in a different guise....it is basically cr*p. All of my PC's are now running Chrome and running better for it.

Aurora

[Kjelt]

You can blame the software, i blame the stupid engineers that came up with all the dangerous and cycle consuming extensions to html , like all the javascripting, flash and all that shit. Running active scripts from an untrusted other computer is asking for trouble.

[Monkeh]

Internet Explorer used to be touted as the baseline for browsers but that day is long gone.

When was that, 1996? IE hasn't been considered anything but substandard in this century.

[AndyC_772]

Are they getting rid of it, or just calling it something else?

Since when has changing something's name actually made it into a different thing? (A turd by any other name...)

[senso]

Something.something 50, incrementing the number everyday, to compete with Chrome and FF stupid version numbers.

[amyk]

Internet Explorer used to be touted as the baseline for browsers but that day is long gone.

When was that, 1996? IE hasn't been considered anything but substandard in this century.

IE6 was for a long time the de-facto browser.

[Pack34]

It actually gets an underserved bad rap these days. Most of the issues I've received with it as-of-late have been because lazy developers  serve up outdated code depending on browser. It's gotten to the point where their phones spoof the agent strings of iOS so that websites will display correctly instead of being broken.

The only reasons I use the resource hog that had become of Chrome is how it handles favorites and the UI feels more up to date.

[Falcon69]

I quit using it the first time i had a download STOP because it reached the Internet Exploder's download size limit (i think it was 2GB?).  Since then, I have used Firefox.

I think that is the main reason why IE failed amongst consumers and everyone else.  Almost all game files downloaded today surpass that download file limit. In fact, I just downloaded a BETA game that is more then 6.5GB in size (zipped).

[dferyance]

I did some web development for a prior job and IE mostly deserves the bad reputation -- mostly.

Yes IE6 was a major problem but wasn't the only problem. It wasn't until IE9 that it was decent. Even with the later versions it was quite common to have to do special IE specific things. It wasn't entirely Microsoft's fault though. Some of the limitations were that they were ahead of the game and implemented something before it totally caught on and they were stuck with the initial version. XMLHttpRequest, VML, some of the DirectX filters before CSS had them. It was still really bad, but Microsoft isn't totally to blame. I even occasionally found something that ran faster in IE but that was the exception rather than the rule.

They messed up with ActiveX support but I don't think it was totally wrongheaded. They messed up by assuming users wouldn't just click by dialog boxes to download and run native code. But the idea had merit. It is similar to how google is playing with NaCl and that most of the new browser features and libraries are all to make it possible to web sites as a client-side application development platform rather than some scripts for animation. It is funny to see developers get exited over being able to plot pixels again.

[Monkeh]

Internet Explorer used to be touted as the baseline for browsers but that day is long gone.

When was that, 1996? IE hasn't been considered anything but substandard in this century.

IE6 was for a long time the de-facto browser.

Only because it came with the OS and people didn't know there were alternatives. IE6 was a terrible turd.

[n45048]

And there are still suckers falling for the 'selling an old turd with new gold plating trick' Microsoft tries to pull every time.

I thought that was Apple?


Whilst I know in more recent times many prefer Firefox or Chrome, but I have to say I'm a bit of an advocate for Internet Explorer. I worked many years in IT including in the network administration side of things and IE just worked.

Even now, IE 11 supports 99% of the websites I use and is my primary browser of choice both at home and at work. I've never come across a security issue with IE provided that Windows is kept up-to-date (which should happen regardless of any OS), plus it's highly customisable and configurable (in fact, we use it on Protected and 'Secret' networks).

I'm a little sad to see the IE brand go but am looking forward to what Microsoft have coming as a replacement. I just find Firefox doesn't play nice with some sites and Chrome likes to push Google-everything.

The other browser I liked was Netscape Navigator 3.0 Gold which came with a built-in WYSIWYG HTML editor. ;-)

[Kjelt]

The same would go for the new Windows, why keep on calling it Windows10 

[Galenbo]

...STOP because it reached the Internet Exploder's download size limit ...I think that is the main reason why IE failed amongst consumers and everyone else.

The reason I went to Firefox back then was the extensions, like Screengrab and Adblock+.
What a strange expierience, the few times I saw internet on another computer, on IE.

 

[Mechanical Menace]

...

I'd sort of agree that it isn't all that bad but where Chrome, Firefox, and even Safari win out is they try to push proper, open, web standards, not Google, Mozilla, or Apple only standards. MS tried to win the "browser wars" by breaking standards...

[n45048]

People largely hated Vista because it was a lemon. Much like Windows Millennium Edition was. It was bloated, unstable and slow.

[Mechanical Menace]

People largely hated Vista because it was a lemon. Much like Windows Millennium Edition was. It was bloated, unstable and slow.

Where Windows 7 was decent sans installing certain drivers.

8 and 8.1 the base system seems to have improved vastly with the experience I've had. But the UI...

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

People largely hated Vista because it was a lemon. Much like Windows Millennium Edition was. It was bloated, unstable and slow.

I realise this is contrary to most peoples experience but I never found Vista to be unstable. My wife is still running it on her laptop.
I always thought the real reason people hated it was that it was Microsofts first attempt to seriously lock down priviledges on the OS. Hence all those pop up security questions which were so annoying.

[Vgkid]

I'm currently running windows Vista on my laptop. I have no reason to upgrade. My plan was to upgrade to 7(32bit), and drop in a ssd. Then I realized, that a refurbbed(bussiness) laptop would be a better upgrade.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

About 3-4 years ago I had to install a embedded web server device within the defence department. The web pages rendered fine in IE 7, 8, 9, chrome and firefox.

I turned up and they were running IE6 which I think was by then no longer supported by MS, I suggested they upgrade and they looked at me as it I was asking them to fly to the moon. "No Chance. We run IE6."
Luckily it rendered ok and was usable, but the buttons looked a bit weird.

I left that place wondering if the country was actually safe from attack.

[SL4P]

About 3-4 years ago I had to install a embedded web server device within the defence department. The web pages rendered fine in IE 7, 8, 9, chrome and firefox.

I turned up and they were running IE6 which I think was by then no longer supported by MS, I suggested they upgrade and they looked at me as it I was asking them to fly to the moon. "No Chance. We run IE6."
Luckily it rendered ok and was usable, but the buttons looked a bit weird.

I left that place wondering if the country was actually safe from attack.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but whenever I've developed an embedded web solution - I found it was my page code that created weird rendering...  in each different browser... (e.g. <\unclosed> or <nest><ed> tags etc)

Yes, currently each browser family has it's own quirks in how they handle different widgets, (enforced standards would be nice), but in every case, I was able to look deeper at the page code, and identify what could be done to make it look more consistent across the major platforms.

I guess there should ideally be a baseline minimal set of rendering tests that EVERY browser should support identically - no (rounded) buttons, or reinterpreting [margins], c har a c  t er spacing etc) - then a 'B' version for whatever extensions that vendor wants to bury themselves with.

At least a page developer would KNOW their page will display identically on all 'compliant' browser platforms - then if the vendor choose to step outside the fence - the weird results are theirs to manage however they want...

[nctnico]

If we go back to 1995: html was never developed to look identical on different browsers because the aim was to create a markup language which could convey information for display on various kinds of devices. Later on graphics designers turned out to be very incompatible with that idea. W3 also caught on slow by not specifying how an html element should be rendered. CSS was stacked on top of the smoking turd to straighten everything out. But a mess it is. Regarding IE going away: good riddance. Another attempt of MS to force their own standards has backfired.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but whenever I've developed an embedded web solution - I found it was my page code that created weird rendering...  in each different browser... (e.g. <\unclosed> or <nest><ed> tags etc)

Yes these errors can be catastrophic or completely fine. And IE was the browser that could render even the worst, most error filled html.
But to fix that bit is fairly easy, you just run each page it through the online W3C checker tool. And get it to the point where there are no errors and very few warnings.

At least a page developer would KNOW their page will display identically on all 'compliant' browser platforms - then if the vendor choose to step outside the fence - the weird results are theirs to manage however they want...

That was my worry, I had tested on all the major browsers, (Safari too, and Opera) but hadn't tested on IE6 because I didn't think anyone in their right mind would be using it.

I guess there should ideally be a baseline minimal set of rendering tests that EVERY browser should support identically - no (rounded) buttons, or reinterpreting [margins], c har a c  t er spacing etc) - then a 'B' version for whatever extensions that vendor wants to bury themselves with.

IMO this is core to the achievement and difficulty of Html. Giving data and also the information about suggested rendering to whatever client it is, but giving them the scope to actually render it how they want.
It's a very difficult standard, and I think Html 5 was a huge leap forward.

W3 also caught on slow by not specifying how an html element should be rendered. CSS was stacked on top of the smoking turd to straighten everything out. But a mess it is.

Lol, yes but there were never any easy ways to do this.

[AndyC_772]

Given long enough, did Vista *ever* stop grinding away at the hard disc?

I never had the patience with it to find out. What was it doing anyway?

[dferyance]

While I don't doubt that some people have had a bad experience with Vista, it is unworthy of its bad reputation. The people I know who had trouble with it installed pre-SP1 on very old computers and didn't like that they couldn't handle it. MS to some degree did it to them-self by listing system requirements that simply were wrong.

Both Windows ME and Windows 8 were absolutely terrible. Vista had many great improvements over XP and does not deserve to be lumped in with those messes.

I ran Vista on a PC that I built and was very happy with it. The new security features we way better than what I was doing with XP of running both an admin and non-admin account. Performance was great but my PC was designed for it. This was during a time that people were very stingy with the amount of RAM they put in a system even though RAM was cheap. I wasn't stingy about this. Also the improved video driver mechanism kept the system stable in scenarios where I had crashes and reboots on XP.

It is quite true to that Windows 7 is essentially Windows Vista with a new name. People just are running it on PC that are designed for it and aren't biased by a few bad experiences.

[Tallie]

I don't think it's possible to make an OS worse than ME...

[Mechanical Menace]

I don't think it's possible to make an OS worse than ME...

Did you never use MS-DOS 4.0? Or AmigaDOS, or TOS...

[nixfu]

I don't think it's possible to make an OS worse than ME...

Did you never use MS-DOS 4.0? Or AmigaDOS, or TOS...

Or for that matter.. Windows 2 or 3 or 3.1.

[SeanB]

I had a set of ME disks complete with the key, in a card that I got a while ago. When I came upon it sitting in a corner I looked at it, decided it would not even make a good coaster and tossed it in the bin after snapping the discs into pieces. Still have the box full of Netware 3.x with the manuals, and the box set with Win95, on 720k stiffy discs.

[Tallie]

I don't think it's possible to make an OS worse than ME...

Did you never use MS-DOS 4.0? Or AmigaDOS, or TOS...

I'm 28. I used some variant of DOS on one of my Dad's computers but exclusively for playing games... my first true experience manipulating an OS was through ME... 'nough said. I was on '98 SE when XP was released, stayed on '98 well into XP's heyday.

[VK3DRB]

I don't think it's possible to make an OS worse than ME...

Microsoft should have compensated the victims of Windows ME at least with a discount on the purchase of another O/S, but Gates and Bullmer seemed to have loved money too much. Any decent company would have provided financial help for a reliable replacement in good faith.

IBM's infamous Deskstar hard disks ("Deathstar") were ultra unreliable. IBM honoured the US lemon laws with cash compensation to the victims of IBM's Deathstar, but they thumbed their noses at the rest of the world who were left with a paperweight and no compensation. In trying to save money for their shareholders, IBM killed its reputation and lost customers for life. I have only ever used Seagate since... a company I can trust.

[Monkeh]

I have only ever used Seagate since... a company I can trust.

Yes, at least Seagate offered free data recovery for their craptastic drives worldwide. Although I don't think they've ever compensated anyone for those hybrid things.

[chicken]

I'm really looking forward to upgrade my dev machine from Win7 to Windows 10: No more drivers required for USB CDC serial. Simply plug it in and a new COM port shows up within seconds! Yay!

I tried the preview on an old Notebook and it works as advertised.

I wonder what took them so long 

[SeanB]

I don't think it's possible to make an OS worse than ME...

Microsoft should have compensated the victims of Windows ME at least with a discount on the purchase of another O/S, but Gates and Bullmer seemed to have loved money too much. Any decent company would have provided financial help for a reliable replacement in good faith.

IBM's infamous Deskstar hard disks ("Deathstar") were ultra unreliable. IBM honoured the US lemon laws with cash compensation to the victims of IBM's Deathstar, but they thumbed their noses at the rest of the world who were left with a paperweight and no compensation. In trying to save money for their shareholders, IBM killed its reputation and lost customers for life. I have only ever used Seagate since... a company I can trust.

I used 2 slightly used ( they were in a server for a decade) Deathstar 1G SCSI drives in my computer as scratch drives, with one having the entire 1G devoted to a fixed swap partition for XP. The other one was the one that died after about 2 years.... I just could not find space to install the full height 4G Seagate brick that was the remaining drive from this Phillips server. It still boots, and has Redhat on it.